Comments Panasonic Lumix FX37 - Digital Camera - review

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

Name withheld

nout

5:50 PM on 19 September, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore nout. Show Details Hide Details

I think the review is a bit harsh, compared to the raving review the FX35 got.

Although I do not own any of these cameras, I did compare the testpictures of both cameras on this site (and other sites) and they appear to be very similar, not to say identical: bit soft, noisy in shadows and not that sharp compared to other brands.

(Post-processing these images, sharpen them a bit isn't possible without adding even more noise)

In fact I was somewhat surprised the FX35 got such a good score (9) for image quality, when other cameras of brands like Canon and Sony, which test images (to me at least) looked much better, 'only' recieved a score of 8.

It goes to show image quality is rather subjective.

Score:

Name withheld

DVR

7:41 PM on 11 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore DVR. Show Details Hide Details

Indeed, I don't really understand what's happening here..

If you open and compare the test shots made by FX35 and FX37 on this site, you can clearly see that pictures taken by FX35 are considerably worse, particularly the one shot at ISO 100 !! There are clearly visible artefacts at the yellow inside part of the green car, which are practically absent on the FX37 shot.. The rest shots of FX35 are also worse that the ones from FX37.

I am really lost. Trying to understand how reviewer evaluates those shots. It looks like he was in the good mood when reviewing FX35, and in bad mood when doing the same with FX37..

Score:

Name withheld

Jimmy

5:33 PM on 15 January, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Jimmy. Show Details Hide Details

It's evident FX37's image quality made a step forward from FX35, so I'll also have to agree with nout and DVR; what was/is the reviewer thinking?

Score:

Name withheld

Keith6

6:46 PM on 25 January, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keith6. Show Details Hide Details

Where is the Conclusions page? Judging by the comments and the score of 7 there were some negative comments in the Conclusion - as I am considering this camera I would like to read them but there are no Conclusions posted.

Score:

Name withheld

DougM

3:26 AM on 2 April, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore DougM. Show Details Hide Details

Once again, as I said in my comments on the FX500, I don't really understand Cliff's rating criteria, because the FX35 gets a better value rating when the price of it and the FX37 are the same ($349 US list price). Yes, the 5x zoom on the FX37 is perhaps not quite as sharp as the 4x on the FX35, but the difference is minimal and probably not visible unless pixel peeping. Prints at 8x10 or less would probably be indistinguishable. Cliff's sample photos from the FX37 look fantastic to me.

Score:

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.

Type Comment
(optional)

Please wait while we send the email.

You may send this to 5 e-mail addresses. Please separate each address with a space.

We're sorry, but the item you are sending has been removed from the site.

We're sorry. We were unable to send the email at this time.

Please specify a recipient.

You can only send messages to 5 addresses at a time.

The address "" is not valid.

Subject

Please specify a subject.

Comment
(optional) Send Cancel

Score
vote upvotes up
vote downvotes down

More Photos

If the Panasonic Lumix FX37 was crammed full of any more advanced technology it would glow blue and hum like a lightsabre, but for all its cleverness and sleek style it still suffers from significant image quality problems. The lens simply isn't as good as the one on the FX35, and the brutal noise reduction system robs images of detail and tonal subtlety. Considering its very high price, I'd have to say that it's simply not worth the money. Get the FX35 instead.

Overall

7/10

Write your own review

Reviewed by Cliff Smith

05 September 2008

Price as reviewed

£230.00

Comments on Panasonic Lumix FX37

Overall

Price as reviewed

Comments

Name withheld

nout

Name withheld

DVR

Name withheld

Jimmy

Name withheld

Keith6

Name withheld

DougM

Awards

Scores in detail

Price as reviewed

Manufacturer

Three of the best Mid range Digital Cameras

Canon PowerShot SX130 IS

Casio Exilim EX-FH100

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX5

Explore TrustedReviews

Site Sections

Round-ups

Tools and Social

More Information

Comments on Panasonic Lumix FX37

Overall

Price as reviewed

Comments

Comments

Name withheld

Name withheld

Name withheld

Name withheld

Name withheld

Awards

Scores in detail

Price as reviewed

Manufacturer

Digital Camera round-ups

TrustedReviews newsletter

Three of the best Mid range Digital Cameras